Claimant's appeal challenging the Tribunal's attribution of 30% contributory negligence to a minor moped rider lacking a licence and seeking enhancement of compensation. Police record showed the Indica car driver at fault; court set aside contributory negligence, upheld quantum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 828 OF 2021 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
NARAYANA, S/O GOPALASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT T. KATURU VILLAGE, MYSORE TQ AND DIST, NOW R/AT 3RD CROSS, GANJAM S R PATNA TOWN AND TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M. Y.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.A. MALLIKARJUN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
NC: 2024:KHC:39787 MFA No. 828 of 2021
SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.02.2020 PASSED IN MVC NO.1588/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Sreenivasan.M.Y. learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri.Mallikarjun Reddy N.A., who represents Sri.Pradeep.B learned counsel on record for respondent No.2 Insurance Company.
rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna in MVC No.1588/2017 dated 14.02.2020. This is a claimant's appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:39787 MFA No. 828 of 2021
submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Indica Car which is involved in the accident. Police after thorough investigation laid charge sheet against the driver of the car. The Insurance Company i.e., respondent No.2 herein has not produced any evidence whatsoever to show that the appellant was negligent in driving his vehicle. However, the Tribunal fastened contributory negligence to an extent of 30% against the appellant which is unjustifiable.
NC: 2024:KHC:39787 MFA No. 828 of 2021
drive the said vehicle. Without any license and expertise, the appellant was driving the vehicle and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly attributed contributory negligence on part of the appellant and thus, the version of the appellant is unjustifiable.
driver of the Indica car which is involved in the accident. Police after investigation laid charge sheet against the driver of the car only. Thus, entire police record including spot mahazar and rough sketch reveals that the negligence lies on the part of the driver of the Indica car only.
should not be taken into consideration to attribute contributory
negligence, learned counsel for the appellant
Sri.Sreenivasan.M.Y relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case between Smt.Seema and others vs
and Sri.Awadhoot and another in MFA No.101991/2021 dated 08.02.2024 wherein the Court at para 17 of the judgment held as under:
police record speaks against the driver of the Indica car. As Police on investigation found that the driver of the car was at fault. Also no observation was made against the appellant or his guardian for entrusting the vehicle to the appellant who is a minor and was not holding driving license at the relevant period. Thus, when the appellant succeeded in establishing that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Indica car and as there is no material on record to show that lack of driving skills on part of the appellant contributed for
the accident to occur, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal is not justifiable in attributing contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. Thus this Court is of the view that contributory negligence attributed on the part of the appellant is required to be set aside.
ORDER
NC: 2024:KHC:39787 MFA No. 828 of 2021
Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE
DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60
2 issues framed by the court
Whether contributory negligence of 30% attributed to the appellant (a minor without driving licence) was justified?
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal should be enhanced?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Seema and others vs Sri. Awadhoot and anotherRelied on
MFA No.101991/2021 dated 08.02.2024
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Narayana
Vinod Raje Urs
The Branch Manager, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.
Chillakur Sumalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
